The meeting itself
How this is scored
Whether the call works: participant capacity, video and audio quality under load, screen sharing, breakout rooms, moderation, and what happens on a bad connection.
0 — Small meetings only, no screen sharing worth the name, no moderation controls, and the call degrades without telling anyone.
3 — Standard meetings with screen sharing and mute-all, but low participant limits, no breakout rooms and no bandwidth adaptation stated.
5 — Meetings at the scale most teams need with screen sharing, breakout rooms, host moderation, and documented behaviour on constrained connections.
8 — Large meetings and webinars with published capacity limits, per-participant moderation and waiting rooms, layout control, simulcast or adaptive bitrate stated, and reliable behaviour on mobile networks.
10 — Scale and control are engineering claims the vendor stands behind: capacity published per plan and per region, selective forwarding with adaptive quality documented, live streaming, hardware-room support, and diagnostics an admin can read after a bad call.
The IT Administrator
Capacity is published rather than promised — 300 participants and a 30-hour meeting limit on the plans shown — and room hardware is real through named partners Yealink, Crestron, Lenovo, Polycom and AudioCodes, managed from a Teams admin center. But I found no public information on screen sharing, breakout rooms, host moderation, waiting rooms, bandwidth adaptation, or diagnostics I could pull after a bad call. I judge a product by its worst meeting, and the captured pages never describe that meeting. 2 6 7 1